Florida's Sunshine Manual
Subpart 1-E: Statutory Exemptions
§1-E-1 | CREATION AND REVIEW OF EXEMPTIONS
The Legislature is authorized to provide by general law passed by two-thirds vote of each house for the exemption of meetings, provided such law states with specificity the public necessity justifying the exemption and is no broader than necessary to accomplish the stated purpose of the law. Article I, s. 24(c), Fla. Const. See s. 119.011(8), F.S., defining the term “exemption” to include a provision of general law which provides that a “specified... meeting, or portion thereof, is not subject to the access requirements” in s. 286.011, F.S., or Art. I, s. 24, Fla. Const. And see Halifax Hospital Medical Center v. News-Journal Corporation, 724 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1999) (open meetings exemption for certain hospital board meetings unconstitutional because it did not meet the constitutional standard of specificity as to stated public necessity and limited breadth to accomplish that purpose). Compare Baker County Press, Inc. v. Baker County Medical Services, Inc., 870 So. 2d 189, 195 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), upholding a more recent public meetings exemption because “the constitutional concerns expressed by the Florida Supreme Court in Halifax” were met due to a more specific legislative justification accompanied by adequate findings to support the breadth of the exemption.
Section 119.15, F.S., the Open Government Sunset Review Act, provides for legislative review of exemptions from the open government laws. Pursuant to the Act, in the fifth year after enactment of a new exemption or expansion of an existing exemption, the exemption shall be repealed on October 2 of the fifth year, unless the Legislature acts to reenact the exemption. Section 119.15(3), F.S. The two-thirds vote requirement for enactment of exemptions set forth in Art. I, s. 24(c), Fla. Const., applies to re-adoption of exemptions as well as initial creation of exemptions. AGO 03-18. (Florida Office of the Attorney General // © )
§1-E-2 | EXEMPTIONS ARE NARROWLY CONSTRUED
The courts have recognized that the Sunshine Law should be construed so as to frustrate all evasive devices. City of Miami Beach v. Berns, 245 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1971); Blackford v. School Board of Orange County, 375 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979); Wolfson v. State, 344 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). As the Florida Supreme Court stated in Canney v. Board of Public Instruction of Alachua County, 278 So. 2d 260, 264 (Fla. 1973):
Various boards and agencies have obviously attempted to read exceptions into the Government in the Sunshine Law which do not exist. Even though their intentions may be sincere, such boards and agencies should not be allowed to circumvent the plain provisions of the statute. The benefit to the public far outweighs the inconvenience of the board or agency. If the board or agency feels aggrieved, then the remedy lies in the halls of the Legislature and not in efforts to circumvent the plain provisions of the statute by devious ways in the hope that the judiciary will read some exception into the law.If a board member is unable to determine whether a meeting is subject to the Sunshine Law, he or she should either leave the meeting or ensure that the meeting complies with the Sunshine Law. See City of Miami Beach v. Berns, supra at 41; Town of Palm Beach v. Gradison, 296 So. 2d 473, 477 (Fla. 1974) (“The principle to be followed is very simple: When in doubt, the members of any board, agency, authority or commission should follow the open-meeting policy of the State.”). (Florida Office of the Attorney General // © )
§1-E-3 | EFFECT OF STATUTORY EXEMPTIONS
a. Notice Requirements
If a statute exempts meetings from the requirements of s. 286.011, F.S., the meetings are also exempt from the notice provisions in that statute that would otherwise apply. AGO 93-86. Accord AGO 07-28.b. Attendance at Closed Meetings
In some cases, a statutory exemption specifies the persons who are permitted to attend a closed session. For example, s. 286.011(8), F.S., establishing an open meetings exemption for certain discussions pertaining to pending litigation, provides that only the entity, the entity’s attorney, the entity’s chief administrative officer, and a court reporter may attend the closed meeting. See AGO 01-10 (clerk of court not authorized to attend).However, where an exemption for certain public hospital board meetings relating to a “written strategic plan” did not specify who may attend (other than a court reporter), the Attorney General’s Office recommended that the board “strictly limit attendance to only those individuals who are essential to the purpose of the meeting, i.e., to discuss, receive a report on, modify, or approve a strategic plan, in order to avoid what the courts might consider to be a disclosure to the public.” AGO 07-28. And see AGO 06-34 (members of a local advocacy council, who are attending a closed session of the statewide advocacy council during the discussion of one of the local council’s cases, may not remain in the closed session when the statewide advocacy council is considering cases from other advocacy councils which are unrelated to the local advocacy council’s cases).
